BHAGWAN DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CHIEF WORKSHOP ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, DEPUTY CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER (WORKSHOP), WORKSHOP JHANSI AND PRINCIPAL SYSTEM TECHNICAL SCHOOL, NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following relief(s): -

(2.) THE brief facts (for the present purpose) are that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of Substitute Safaiwala in the pay scale of Rs. 196 -232/ - vide order dated 01.09.1982 by respondent No. 4. A charge sheet No. B -11 dated 17.05.1983 was issued to the applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 by the respondent No. 4 alleging therein that the applicant was absent for 26 days out of 40 = days from 01.01.1983 to 15.05.1983. He was suspended by respondent No. 4 on 09.08.2013 but subsequently the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 12.08.1983. Another charge sheet was issued to the applicant by respondent No. 4 on 26.08.1983 and a punishment of withholding increment for two years was passed on the charge sheet dated 26.08.1983. After concluding the inquiry on the charge sheet dated 17.05.1983, the respondent No. 4 passed an order dated 04.01.1985 regarding removal of his services w.e.f. 08.01.1985. The applicant preferred an Appeal against the order dated 04.01.1985 on 07.02.1985 but the outcome of Appeal could not be served upon the applicant. He sent several reminders from time to time. Ultimately, he filed O.A. No. 1630 of 2005 before this Tribunal in which Counter Affidavit was filed by the respondents through which the applicant came to know that the Appeal, preferred by him, has already been decided on 18.03.1985 by respondent No. 3. The applicant preferred Revision before respondent No. 2 challenging the impugned order as well as the appellate order and the Tribunal decided O.A. No. 1630/2005 on 05.11.2008 directing the respondents to decide the Revision of applicant within a stipulated period. The Revision was dismissed by the Revisional Authority. Hence, this O.A. was filed by the applicant.

(3.) THE applicant has also filed the Rejoinder Reply mainly reiterating the earlier stands in the O.A., submitting further that in O.A. No. 1630 of 2005, an application for condonation of delay was also moved by the applicant and the Tribunal had condoned the delay in filing the O.A. and the O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.